This is braindead. There is nothing but principle behind Trumps foreign policy. The move to take out the Iran theocratic regime that has terrorized the free world for 47 years is nothing but based on principles.
This Substack is becoming just standard leftist propaganda lacking any attempt at infusing logos into the mix. It is just attracting the hysterical, hyperbolic consumer of emotional sensationalism to back their Orange Man Bad syndrome sickness.
"Substack is becoming standard leftist propaganda...". That's why you're here Frank, so you can post insulting bile and "own a few libs". Sorry, Frank, no one seems to be taking your bait. Always a pleasure to send you a brief "fuck off".
Americans are rightly averse to foreign interventions having learned from the past. But to never pursue goals abroad under any circumstances, even when the costs are minimal, is not a principal but weakness.
Iraq wasn't bad because interventions are always bad, but because that one cost us a lot and achieved very little. Conversely, taking out Maduro, Iran's nuclear facility, and supreme leader all in a few hours each with minimal casualties is something else entirely.
Still plenty of time for all of these to go south, but for right now it seems like his principal might be a basic cost benefit analysis.
the strike on Iran to force them to destroy their nuclear program or at least set them back decades has been threatened by every single POTUS since.. Clinton?? Bush W? the deep bunker bombs were developed under the Obama Admin. I am no fan of the Orange Man, but there IS a principle here (and frankly there has been a geopolitical principle behind his other strikes). This was probably our last and best chance to halt the Iranian program and at the most opportune moment, because of Iran being on hits economic and military knees since it sided with Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel.
Mr Linker, I don't understand the REVERENCE for Powell's silly rule and I don't understand why we should be bound to it. Yes, it would be PREFERABLE not to break everything, but for e.g. if our objective is achieved, and things ARE "broken", then it's for the locals to pick up the pieces. It's their country. If we want democracy, etc fine, we can create no fly zones, even arm people to fight government forces. again, bottom line is there was thing in your land/country which we "had to get rid of". Sorry.. now you're going to have to pick up the pieces and make sure we don't have to get rid of it AGAIN. Saddam should have been taken care of much earlier ..he broke the agreement with Schwarzkopf on multiple occasions. Instead, Bush sr "encouraged" the people of Iraq (the Shiites) to rise up, and then watched as his intact Republican Guards (which shou8ld had been neutered in Desert Storm) and helic0opters which violated the no fly zone destroyed the rebels.
This is braindead. There is nothing but principle behind Trumps foreign policy. The move to take out the Iran theocratic regime that has terrorized the free world for 47 years is nothing but based on principles.
This Substack is becoming just standard leftist propaganda lacking any attempt at infusing logos into the mix. It is just attracting the hysterical, hyperbolic consumer of emotional sensationalism to back their Orange Man Bad syndrome sickness.
"Substack is becoming standard leftist propaganda...". That's why you're here Frank, so you can post insulting bile and "own a few libs". Sorry, Frank, no one seems to be taking your bait. Always a pleasure to send you a brief "fuck off".
Americans are rightly averse to foreign interventions having learned from the past. But to never pursue goals abroad under any circumstances, even when the costs are minimal, is not a principal but weakness.
Iraq wasn't bad because interventions are always bad, but because that one cost us a lot and achieved very little. Conversely, taking out Maduro, Iran's nuclear facility, and supreme leader all in a few hours each with minimal casualties is something else entirely.
Still plenty of time for all of these to go south, but for right now it seems like his principal might be a basic cost benefit analysis.
the strike on Iran to force them to destroy their nuclear program or at least set them back decades has been threatened by every single POTUS since.. Clinton?? Bush W? the deep bunker bombs were developed under the Obama Admin. I am no fan of the Orange Man, but there IS a principle here (and frankly there has been a geopolitical principle behind his other strikes). This was probably our last and best chance to halt the Iranian program and at the most opportune moment, because of Iran being on hits economic and military knees since it sided with Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel.
Mr Linker, I don't understand the REVERENCE for Powell's silly rule and I don't understand why we should be bound to it. Yes, it would be PREFERABLE not to break everything, but for e.g. if our objective is achieved, and things ARE "broken", then it's for the locals to pick up the pieces. It's their country. If we want democracy, etc fine, we can create no fly zones, even arm people to fight government forces. again, bottom line is there was thing in your land/country which we "had to get rid of". Sorry.. now you're going to have to pick up the pieces and make sure we don't have to get rid of it AGAIN. Saddam should have been taken care of much earlier ..he broke the agreement with Schwarzkopf on multiple occasions. Instead, Bush sr "encouraged" the people of Iraq (the Shiites) to rise up, and then watched as his intact Republican Guards (which shou8ld had been neutered in Desert Storm) and helic0opters which violated the no fly zone destroyed the rebels.